Do not move an ancient boundary stone
which was put in place by your ancestors
-Proverbs 22:28

Friday, August 17, 2012

Beauty in Submission- pt. 1

Will be commenting on recent folks
continuing to blur the distinctions in role playing.Will not be commenting on the radical
feminism of Raelism pictured above (though they have some good
points).

But will be commenting on the softer
feminismheld by Rachel Held Evans and the not so keen stuff of Leslie Keeney . Those who fail to see the beauty in submission.

But will first comment on the recent blurring of distinctions by the Christian Missionary Alliance in
Canada-

Last month the Canadian Missionary
Alliance elected a new President at Assembly.And summarily approved Ordination of Women.Presumably in thehope of producing a ‘beautiful egalitarian
society’ .A movement which is said to have had quite the opposite effect by The Gospel Coalition here .

So let’s take a look at this new
President’s argument for endorsing the ordination of women.President David Hearn published his position
paper here.

Hearn starts from the argument of
uncertainty- ‘Did God really say that women are not to be ordained?’Then
proceeds to suggest that-

1)since two prominent scholars cannot
convince each other about God’s intention- that it ‘might actually be safe to endorse the
ordination of women’.

2)and to
suggest that the founder of the CMA denomination ‘might even have championed the ordaining
of women’.

Hearn then attempts to dispel fears
by suggesting that ordaining women ‘might not actually be a slippery slope
after all’.

Yep, a whole lot of might’s there.A whole bunch of non-sequiturs.And a whole bunch of arguments… from
silence.

Unless of course, you grant Hearn’s
appeal to Acts 15 [primarily an account of the very first church council].A passage cited as proof that women are “also
endowed with the Holy Spirit”.

Yet this
was not the issue of that particular council.Nor was it the only qualification that ancient councils made for elders
(see Titus 1).Indeed, even the
first-century council cited in Didascalia
demanded elders to ‘be over 50 years old and have a beard’-a qualification that many women struggle with :)

Hearn then rebukes those who might
impose “preconceived notions on how the Holy Spirit might operate”.I guess I’ll have to consider myself rebuked
then- since I have numerous preconceived notions on how the Holy Spirit actually
operates (and is supposed to operate) from both the Old and the New
Testament.And as Martin Luther said, ‘to discard such
notions is neither safe nor wise’.

Hearn then gives two examples of
where ordination of women did not lead down a slippery slope.Yet Hearn is silent on the far more numerous
recent examples where it has in fact led to the denominations virtual
demise.And has led to gross
unholiness.

Yet my concern is hardly of “the
emasculation of the church”, as Hearn suggests.

My concern remains a case of granting that
which the Bible does not grant.And
especially granting that which the Bible insists we do NOT grant.My concern remains a case of granting headship to women.

A granting which Peter and Paul refused to do
for various reasons.Reasons which are
currently not being addressed.Reasons
which are certainly not politically correct.Reasons which we will pursue in the next post.

However, Hearn insists that we are
‘not actually conferring headship’.Insists that we are merely ‘acknowledging
special gifts’.Merely giving women a
bigger pat on the head.And shielding
their head from congregational criticism.

Yet, this sure looks like a headship issue to me.It sure looks like a ‘moving of the ancient
boundary stones’ to me.Looks like a
departure from Biblical Man and Womanhood.A position that I thought CMA tacitly endorsed.

So let’s take a look at what "ordination actually does" in the CMA.Let’s look at a paper published by the
previous president of CMA.His
interpretation paper of a year previous.

Here we see that this ordination is
an endorsement of “lifelong service”.That those who are ordained are “set apart”.Set apart for “guiding the church”.Sure looks like headship to me.Kinda like a shepherd… for
life!

Now perhaps the greatest issue I have
with this former President’s contentions is that “ordination does not confer
authority over others”.As if shepherds
do not confer authority over sheep.As
if elders do not confer authority over others at council meetings.

Yet we see from this very first
church council in Jerusalem (the Acts 15 passage in question) that ordained
elders/πρεσβυτέρωνdo in fact confer authority and should in fact confer authority.Just how the former President overlooks this
historical conferring confuses me.

However, let’s get to the confusing
position of Rachel Held Evans:

Rachel rightly recognizes the
temporal curse (Genesis 3:16) of women desiring to usurp the headship of
man.However, Rachel objects to the “manly language of power” coming from the
renowned Jared Wilson.And suggests that
this manly power over women is ‘not
the intention of God… even though it was a curse from God’.That ‘equality is the actual intention of
God’.And that this ‘gender inequality is to be rectified’.And I actually agree… but not rectified in
this life.

Which is to say, that until our re-creation in the next life- there is a
certain created order to be observed. A certain role to be played... and all women know it!And I expect to show how the feminist Christians For Biblical Equality will not 'put their mammaries where
their mouth is' in a subsequent post.

But continuing on, Leslie Keeney has a similar
argument:

That the subordination of the Son was
just a ‘temporal aberration’.That He is
‘not necessarily subordinate any longer’.No longer subordinate ‘since he was re-instated’ to sit at the right hand
of God the Father.

And that women should not necessarily
be subordinate any longer if this ‘merely speculative’ Trinitarian analogy
doesn’t hold. That there is ‘no necessary order’ then.That there is no necessary role playing then. That women should ‘stand just as tall as any man
then’.

Yet, the Son still does NOT stand beside the right hand of God the
Father, dear readers.And the Son was
certainly NOT ‘re-instated’ to Godhood.The Son remains God and we remain human.And thankfully, the Son will continue to intercede with the Father on
our behalf (Hebrews 7:25).The Son will
continue to be sub-ordinate for His
believers … “forever”.Now what sort of
‘temporal aberration’ of subordination is that, Leslie?

Now, the somewhat confusing Michael Bird
is entirely right in Keeney’s citation as well, that "the Trinitarian argument
need not be appealed to".But what
Keeney is remarkably silent on- is that this "argument need not be appealed to" because different arguments are so clearly stated elsewhere in scripture.So that no Trinitarian “trump card” is
actually required to disprove
egalitarianism.

Which begs the question, ‘Why do
these women and sympathizers fail to deal with the numerous passages elsewhere’?

Deal with the numerous admonitions of
Peter?

Deal with the numerous admonitions of
Paul?

Deal with the numerous precepts,
precedents and principles evident in scripture?